Open spinal surgical procedures generally require a relatively long incision, extensive muscle stripping, prolonged retraction of tissues, and increase risk of damage to vascular and nerve tissue. This type of procedure usually necessitates many weeks of post-operative recovery due to the use of long hours under general anesthesia, blood transfusions and the unavoidable trauma caused to the body tissues during the procedures. An open surgical procedure will also result in significant permanent scarring leading to fusion disease.
Surgery performed percutaneously has achieved major improvements over open surgery. The reduction of muscle and tissue dissection significantly reduces post operative recovery, pain, and recovery time. Percutaneous surgery is particularly beneficial for spinal surgery because the surgical area is deep within the body and in locations surrounded by sensitive and critical body tissues. Tube retractors have been developed to provide minimally invasive access to the surgical area. The ability to dilate muscle tissue, as opposed to strip or detach them from the bony anatomy, will reduce the damage and risks normally associated with the open type surgery.
The typical tube retractor technique starts with the identification of the correct entry point, establishing the trajectory from the skin to the pathology to be addressed and the corresponding skin incision. The initial soft tissue dilator is inserted through the incision and forcefully advanced to the objective site. A series of larger dilators are inserted over the initial dilator thereby sequentially increasing the diameter until the final/operative dilator is inserted. Once the operative dilator is in place it must be fixed in order to resist movement that will result from forces imposed by the patient's tissue. Currently, the accepted approach to fixation is a point outside of the patient's anatomy. Typically a rigid arm is attached at one end to the retractor while the opposite end of the arm is attached to a bed rail clamp. Once the retractor is fixed in position, the surgeon begins the operation to address the pathology. Upon completion of the procedure the retractor tube is removed and the skin incision is closed. Because of the reduced morbidity to the patient, the patient's initial recovery time should be less, blood loss should be less, operating room time should be less, anesthesia time should be less, patient stay in the hospital should be less, return to work time should be less and the overall cost of the procedure should be less.
One of the most difficult aspects of the current technique is that the rigid fixation of the retractor is sometimes subject to unintentional or unavoidable movement of the patient during the course of the surgical procedure. Another consistent problem is the inability of the current designs and methods to adequately retract the muscle tissue at the distal end of the retractor, which for all intents and purposes is the most crucial portion of the retractor. Due to the retractors inability to clear the surgical area the surgeon must resort to cutting, cauterizing and removing the final fibers of muscle. This process of physical tissue removal carries with it increased risk of damage to ancillary tissues and nervous tissues, while at the same time increasing morbidity, blood loss and operative time. These difficulties result in high levels of frustration making the technique less likely to be adopted by the majority of surgeons. The current retractors lack the distraction capability at the distal end of the retractor which is where the strongest forces resisting the retractor are present. In addition the current retractor designs do not accommodate the natural anatomical shape of the patient's anatomy where the pathology exists.